[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6655706,"mediaKeyId","5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5","parentId",5374939,"title","Ethics staff outline wide-ranging enforcement-regulation revisions; commissioners and public raise concerns about sunshine, fines and reopening rules","audioSeconds",3872,"startMs",5593000,"endMs",9465000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5&start=5593&end=9465","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5/thumbnail_5593000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6655706/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Ethics-staff-outline-wide-ranging-enforcement-regulation-revisions-commissioners-and-public-raise-concerns-about-sunshine-fines-and-reopening-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655706-4d90d3e4beca4a150734556ebd96e4af/orig.mp4?Expires=1775098431&Signature=M~ImWt7xzO8piDem6OUv3mkH95ic8FnYBKKBvcOH6nqmQnIGlP3bwRktpv7wxaY9dDuTLyenRSz00GBHvRtqmT89Sr4lq85eg-gEIKXNPlVjOsWHYjm2n2RywgRO4Jchxuh28rUTsC1876la3ZkHLGy-uLs-n~kEONUQ7RcfsXwlZCS7~2anVm~UqqkQX~-lxcEM9Lf3fUiREhB5C6P7~gZ2vUBEgzrE97fmt-73kGIh2ixmWLSkBkInRkKKwTHyyj7xpaQCLX6idHf8Lz5a53pPLdMsFihGY1fObbAw2ycrIH9Ro1H6JRd0bqeyZnZKt0zvI8TOOuqcYpP-LQA5VQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-07-11T00:00:00Z","article","San Francisco Ethics Commission staff on July 11 presented proposed, red-lined amendments to the agency’s enforcement regulations intended to clarify deadlines, tighten procedures and adapt practices the enforcement division has been using in recent years.

Director of Enforcement Matthews said the revisions were designed to \"promote a clearer, more consistent, fair and efficient enforcement process,\" and outlined proposals including: a clear \"good cause\" standard for deadline extensions; a rule that if filing deadlines fall on a weekend or holiday filings are due the next business day; explicit authority for the executive director (or designee) to prepare or sign probable-cause determinations; a limited ability for the commission to reopen closed matters when newly discovered material facts surface; a clarification that investigative evidence gathered prior to a probable-cause determination may be offered at hearing; and language to make clear the commission cannot accept donor or legal-defense funds to pay assessed administrative penalties.

Staff said the proposals were developed after two rounds of interested‑persons meetings, consultations with the City Attorney’s Office and an internal review prompted by an increase in cases advancing through the probable-cause process. The enforcement division noted that the changes largely formalize practices the division follows in day‑to‑day investigations and hearings and aim to avoid procedural bottlenecks.

Commissioners and members of the public raised several concerns. Several Sunshine Ordinance Task Force members — including Dean Schmidt and Task Force Chair Matt Yankee — pressed the commission not to narrow the agency’s authority to hear Sunshine Ordinance matters and urged a written definition of “willful failure.” Schmidt and Yankee argued that the task force has on occasion referred willful matters to the Ethics Commission and that those referrals should be heard publicly by the commission rather than dispatched only to staff.

Multiple public commenters and several organizations also objected to certain proposed changes. Public commenters and representatives of legal and campaign-practice groups said the proposed ban on using campaign committee or legal-defense funds to pay assessed administrative penalties would be unworkable and could discourage individuals from serving as treasurers or participating in campaign activity. Critics also urged the commission to adopt any major procedural changes only prospectively rather than retroactively and called for clearer notice and due-process protections around any authority to \"reopen\" closed cases; one commenter from the Campaign Practice Advisory Association asked for a clear process and notice to respondents.

Whistleblower advocates urged the commission not to reduce transparency by removing a standalone quarterly summary of whistleblower retaliation investigations. Professor/advocate Dr. Derek Kerr told commissioners the commission’s retaliation-records history shows no sustained findings, and said eliminating a visible, standalone report could further obscure patterns in retaliation complaints.

Staff told commissioners they plan to revise the redlines and return with a final package for formal consideration; Acting Chair Salahi and others said no vote would be taken at the July meeting because only three commissioners were present. Commissioners and staff flagged specific drafting issues for correction (citation numbering, a proposed good‑cause documentation requirement, confidentiality language and notice requirements for reopened matters) and asked staff to post additional public comments received on the commission website. Director Matthews said staff would incorporate input from the public meetings, the City Attorney and interested parties before the next hearing on the regulations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jul 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Ethics staff presented a red-lined draft of amendments to the commission’s enforcement regulations on July 11, proposing changes that include a formal good-cause definition for extensions, delegation of probable-cause drafting, limited reopening authority for newly discovered evidence and a ban on using donor or legal-defense funds to pay assessed penalties.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6655712,"Ethics Commission issues default judgment and $3,000 fine against William Walker for disclosure violations",702,4883000,5585000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5&start=4883&end=5585","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5/thumbnail_4883000.jpg","/articles/6655712/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Ethics-Commission-issues-default-judgment-and-3000-fine-against-William-Walker-for-disclosure-violations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655712-f85ebc793797139bd73edbb53d6220a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775098431&Signature=Pato60B6rS8lTeAg7TLXlRSwSpdtD47USVr02BydvrdZDHwbF6z5jvoYQqwkt-qNJ5c5nnhiFlEdO3EUR45ZT3kSlIFauZlIrpec3KV41bw8a3KZqDa-W8oXivaxG8QxseguwTZfno0WaJw6wi3yxKJ6BCaBj2cAnAfYQvhED-H22QzcGg1waWN3IthGPh0oYSrH6JXbmM94-ZCFiV2koPRdLyhPbGM0bTyo8ern71GoKU20EbWGT-JL92EU2SrHzY1qI9OheVR-K5VxNbQ1kHfV~nLeM54bCkoA-laIPxizeb2hmeYWPhKEkyGwovCbUVxN1M~PjfZ6jy1QvCbwqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Ethics Commission issued a default judgment July 11 against respondent William Walker on six counts of campaign-disclosure violations and imposed a total penalty of $3,000, the commission said at a public hearing.

Enforcement staff told the commission Walker was duly noticed of the hearing and had acknowledged receipt of notices; Walker did not appear. Director of Enforcement Matthews said the enforcement division requested a penalty of $500 per count — $3,000 total — and sought an order requiring Walker to comply with the disclosure obligations. \"These are important disclosures,\" Matthews said, adding that the public has an interest in knowing campaign spending and that past noncompliance justified the penalty.

The enforcement division represented that Walker received written notice on June 3 and that staff had followed up by telephone and attempted to obtain cooperation. Matthews told the commission that Walker has acknowledged the notices in prior communications but did not indicate he would be absent for the hearing.

The commission voted to issue a default judgment on counts one through six and then voted to impose the requested penalty. In roll-call votes reported at the meeting, Commissioners Yeh, Francois and Acting Chair Salahi each recorded “Aye.” The motions passed on a 3-0 vote.

Enforcement staff said the penalties were set in part to ensure accountability and to address disclosures the division described as important to public oversight of campaign activity; the staff filing compared similar prior cases and recommended the $500-per-count assessment. The Commission ordered the fine and that Walker comply with any outstanding disclosure obligations listed in the enforcement file. The record shows no further action on settlements or payment arrangements in the hearing minutes.

The Ethics Commission’s enforcement division will handle collection of the fine through standard city processes; staff noted respondents who claim financial hardship may be able to request separate collection accommodations through the city’s delinquent-revenue procedures, but the commission does not itself accept installment plans.","After the respondent failed to appear, the Ethics Commission issued a default judgment on six counts and imposed a $500-per-count penalty totaling $3,000, citing the importance of campaign disclosure compliance.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6655716,"Ethics Commission takes no action now on Sunshine Ordinance referral involving SFPD; leaves door open for willfulness complaint",4452,418000,4870000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5&start=418&end=4870","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374939-7ead24580a688cc832494cbf625dc3b5/thumbnail_418000.jpg","/articles/6655716/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Ethics-Commission-takes-no-action-now-on-Sunshine-Ordinance-referral-involving-SFPD-leaves-door-open-for-willfulness-complaint","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6655716-6f8a07adcac21cf81541cf353f0bbfdf/orig.mp4?Expires=1775098431&Signature=dS3nLbaNKqPvjfQQZ9nIfjazmP4cb3M1D1Hwk4NGv2ylAVpMk98B4mQyr7hImoI-7hnQc1ahnea5Irm4dJYEnC6rVwXroFqQoUaXQCCCl0g~mrv0ICfpqb9r09uQvFW-kP2eo7lqdwWx27tMb4xUmIUMOGscGF6ArH9GTDuKCCtBf4NnY-i2KitUXX87jPsg9~YtDPIFeoaCJU8kVDdWsYMbkmIEVtvL-NsusACALBjZUp~ypFNgQgdBuxMYsIJKjnO~PpSv5rjfoPRvrdOH6MqV-fR5X7t7d7dm7LHumi~-5r9~lPADlmqdWn~~9JA6PpIgZdb1gHyuq8Iqigo04Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Acting Chair Vice Chair Salahi and two other commissioners voted unanimously on July 11 to take no action on a referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force about a records order for the San Francisco Police Department, while leaving the matter “without prejudice” so the petitioner or the task force may pursue a willfulness complaint under the commission’s standard enforcement process.

The vote followed extended legal discussion about whether the Ethics Commission can enforce non-willful violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. Enforcement staff recommended against action on the referral, saying the regulations do not authorize monetary penalties or other remedies for non-willful violations. Director of Enforcement Matthews told the commission the staff’s view was that \"the regulations do not provide for monetary penalties or other remedies upon a finding of a non willful violation,\" and recommended no action on that basis.

The item began as a May 2, 2025 referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force under San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.35(d) about the Police Department’s refusal to comply with an order of determination. Acting Chair Salahi framed the legal choice the commission faced: whether to adjudicate the merits of whether records must be disclosed or to determine only whether a city official willfully ignored a task force order. Salahi said, \"the question is simply whether or not there was a willful violation of an order by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,\" and urged colleagues to focus on that narrower question.

Dean Schmidt, who appeared for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, told commissioners the task force had issued an order to produce records and had not made a majority finding of willfulness; he said the task force believed the petitioner could bring a willfulness allegation to the Ethics Commission. Schmidt explained the task force’s view that the ordinance’s drafters intended alternative administrative remedies and that some referrals should be eligible to come before the Ethics Commission.

Petitioner Matthew Latoki participated by phone and told the commission he believes the Police Department committed \"a willful violation of the order of determination,\" and urged the commission not to require him to refile the case. Sergeant Walter Ware appeared for SFPD but said he had limited information beyond prior participation by Lieutenant Jonathan Ozil. Director Matthews and the City Attorney’s representative both reiterated that the notice accompanying the referral and the task force’s own referral language were framed as a non-willful referral and that a willfulness complaint should proceed through the Ethics Commission’s ordinary complaint and investigation process if the petitioner or the task force prefers that route.

After discussion, Commissioner Yeh moved to take no action on the referral without prejudice to Mr. Latoki or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force presenting the issue as a willful-violation complaint under the regular enforcement procedures; the motion was seconded and passed on a 3-0 roll call. Commissioner Yeh, Commissioner Francois and Acting Chair Salahi each voted “Aye.” The commission’s action leaves open the option for the petitioner or the task force to file a willfulness complaint under the standard Section 10(a) complaint process, which would trigger the commission’s formal investigation and probable-cause procedures.

The commission did not impose penalties or make any finding about the merits of whether the records at issue are disclosable under the Sunshine Ordinance or the California Public Records Act. Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that the current question was procedural and jurisdictional rather than a merits adjudication of the underlying records dispute.

The commission’s discussion flagged divergent interpretations of Administrative Code sections 67.21, 67.34 and 67.35(d) and the limitations imposed by the City Charter on the Ethics Commission’s remedial authority. Commissioners and staff said the debate over jurisdiction and remedies will inform a broader discussion later in the meeting about proposed amendments to the Ethics Commission’s enforcement regulations.","The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted 3-0 on July 11 to take no action on a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force referral regarding Matthew Latoki’s request for San Francisco Police Department records, saying the matter may be refiled as a willful-violation complaint.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ethics staff outline wide-ranging enforcement-regulation revisions; commissioners and public raise concerns about sunshine, fines and reopening rules

Ethics Commission issues default judgment and $3,000 fine against William Walker for disclosure violations

Ethics Commission takes no action now on Sunshine Ordinance referral involving SFPD; leaves door open for willfulness complaint